>That's not a counter argument but dissatisfaction.

You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism.

> Are you saying that EU companies also don't follow their laws?

I'm insinuating that if someone wanted to defend Facebook's position one avenue would be to argue that the law is being selectively enforced. Obviously this isn't a comprehensive argument but it's an easy platform to jump in other directions from.

> You're correct but mainly because I wasn't paying attention and phrased it as a question. Written instead as a statement, it's a valid counter argument because it's criticizing the parent comment's ridicule of a different instance of criticism.

I doubt a statement expressing dissatisfaction is a valid legal argument responding to a legal ruling. Clearly the term argument in this context is for a legal argument not a colloquial use of the term, since a legal appeal is what is being discussed.

When people get traffic tickets, the judge won't let them off for saying, "But, your honor, the police officer didn't pull over any of the other speeders around me."

I was using the term "argument" in the more broadly applicable but also literal sense of the word. Your explanation is correct but you've either misunderstood what I was saying or I've misread your reply.

No worries. That explains things, either way.